Mendel’s Accountant again….

Background

Functional information is normally communicated using specific, context-dependent strings of symbolic characters. This is true within the human realm (texts and computer programs), and also within the biological realm (nucleic acids and proteins). In biology, strings of nucleotides encode much of the information within living cells. How do such information-bearing nucleotide strings arise and become established?

Methods

This paper uses comprehensive numerical simulation to understand what types of nucleotide strings can realistically be established via the mutation/selection process, given a reasonable timeframe. The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process, and was modified so that a starting string of nucleotides could be specified, and a corresponding target string of nucleotides could be specified. We simulated a classic pre-human hominin population of at least 10,000 individuals, with a generation time of 20 years, and with very strong selection (50 % selective elimination). Random point mutations were generated within the starting string. Whenever an instance of the target string arose, all individuals carrying the target string were assigned a specified reproductive advantage. When natural selection had successfully amplified an instance of the target string to the point of fixation, the experiment was halted, and the waiting time statistics were tabulated. Using this methodology we tested the effect of mutation rate, string length, fitness benefit, and population size on waiting time to fixation.

Results

Biologically realistic numerical simulations revealed that a population of this type required inordinately long waiting times to establish even the shortest nucleotide strings. To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years. We found that waiting times were reduced by higher mutation rates, stronger fitness benefits, and larger population sizes. However, even using the most generous feasible parameters settings, the waiting time required to establish any specific nucleotide string within this type of population was consistently prohibitive.

Conclusion

We show that the waiting time problem is a significant constraint on the macroevolution of the classic hominin population. Routine establishment of specific beneficial strings of two or more nucleotides becomes very problematic.

petrushka: Show me that living things can be designed, or you are just spewing bullshit.

Seeing all that you do is spew bullshit yours is very meaningless statement I can show you the evidence that living organisms are intelligently designed. But you would just ignore it or choke on it, again.

This is really very simple. We know that that megalithic structures can be built using ancient technology because we have taken the trouble to find the original tools and to replicate and test low tech methods. So we know it’s possible.

So such replication exists for protein codes or for regulatory networks. When a pharmaceutical company designs a drug they set up a massive artificial evolution system and screen millions of candidates.

petrushka:
This is really very simple. We know that that megalithic structures can be built using ancient technology because we have taken the trouble to find the original tools and to replicate and test low tech methods. So we know it’s possible.

And yet there are many such structures that we don’t know how they did it.

So such replication exists for protein codes or for regulatory networks. When a pharmaceutical company designs a drug they set up a massive artificial evolution system and screen millions of candidates.

One other thing overlooked by Behe. In any reasonably sized population, every possible point mutation will occur and be tested in a very few generations. Any change that might be artificially introduced would be superfluous.

petrushka:
One other thing overlooked by Behe. In any reasonably sized population, every possible point mutation will occur and be tested in a very few generations. Any change that might be artificially introduced would be superfluous.

LoL! Please present the evidence to support your claim about Behe. Also support you claim about artificially induced mutations being superfluous.

Logically if we can say that living organisms were intelligently designed then we can safely say the bulk of subsequent genetic change was directed.

See also “Not By Chance” Spetner, 1997

One nice example is Lenski’s E. coli- one of which took an existing gene- the only gene that produced a protein that transports citrate- and put it under control of an existing promoter which allowed the gene to be expressed in the presence of O2.

petrushka: All the lotto numbers get played. Intervention or front loading would be superfluous.

Yes, it’s a point I’ve never seen an IDist grasp. If all permutations are iterated through then front-loading adds nothing that would not already be present. If all permutations are iterated through then “programmed responses to environmental cues” adds nothing that would not already be present.

And as we saw with Lenski, there were no pre-programmed responses unless “mutate randomly” is such a response.

petrushka: So you are conceding that once replicators exist, and replication is imperfect, evolution is inevitable.

Your continued equivocation is annoying. The self-sustained replication of RNAs did not produce any evolution beyond the ability to reproduce faster. And that was intelligent designed- the ability to reproduce.

OMagain: Yes, it’s a point I’ve never seen an IDist grasp. If all permutations are iterated through then front-loading adds nothing that would not already be present. If all permutations are iterated through then “programmed responses to environmental cues” adds nothing that would not already be present.

And as we saw with Lenski, there were no pre-programmed responses unless “mutate randomly” is such a response.

Great, when someone can actually model your view of evolution you will have something.

newton: You said if natural processes could create the effect ,design was falsified and that design could be determined without knowing how( foul play). Is design falsified by your own standard or not?